36716 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1See http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/ 

index.html#proposed and http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-R09- 

OAR-2013-0009. 

second sentence of the SUMMARY and the 

title of contact person was incorrect. 

This document corrects those errors. 

In the first column, second sentence 

of the SUMMARY, add the word 

‘‘advanced’’ before ‘‘notice of proposed 

rulemaking,’’ and in the second column, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

correct the title by removing ‘‘Executive 

Director, Center for Veterans Enterprise 

(00VE)’’ and adding, in its place, 

‘‘Executive Director of the Office of 

Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization (00SB)’’. 

Dated: June 14, 2013. 

William F. Russo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Regulation Policy 

and Management, Office of the General 

Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14583 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0009; FRL–9825–3] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze 

Requirements for Navajo Generating 

Station; Notice of Intent To Hold Public 

Hearings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to hold public 

hearings. 

SUMMARY: On February 5, 2013, EPA 

proposed a Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determination for 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

from the Navajo Generating Station 

(NGS), located on the Navajo Nation. 

EPA provided a three-month period for 

public comments, to close on May 6, 

2013. The Navajo Nation, Gila River 

Indian Community, and other affected 

stakeholders requested a 90-day 

extension of the comment period to 

allow time for stakeholders to develop 

an alternative to EPA’s proposed BART 

determination that achieves greater 

reasonable progress. On March 19, 2013, 

EPA extended the close of the public 

comment period to August 5, 2013. EPA 

is providing notice of our intent to hold 

five public hearings to accept written 

and oral comments on the proposed 

BART determination for NGS. 

DATES: EPA will announce dates and 

locations for the public hearings at a 

later time in the Federal Register, on 

our Web site, and in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking.1 Comments on 

the proposed BART determination for 

NGS must be postmarked no later than 

August 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be 

held at various locations in Indian 

country and in the state of Arizona. 

Please see the section on 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 

details. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972– 

3958, r9ngsbart@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA 

intends to hold public hearings at one 

location each on the Navajo Reservation, 

on the Hopi Reservation, and in Page, 

Phoenix, and Tucson, Arizona. These 

hearings will provide interested parties 

the opportunity to present facts, views, 

or arguments concerning the proposed 

rule requiring NGS to meet emission 

limits for NOX, required under the 

BART provision of the Regional Haze 

Rule, in order to reduce visibility 

impairment resulting from NGS at 11 

National Parks and Wilderness Areas. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at the public hearing. Written 

comments must be postmarked on or 

before the last day of the comment 

period, August 5, 2013. 

If you are unable to attend the hearing 

but wish to submit comments on the 

proposed rule, you may submit 

comments, identified by docket number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0009, by one of 

the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

(2) Email: r9ngsbart@epa.gov. 

(3) Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

For more detailed instructions 

concerning how to submit comments on 

this proposed rule, and for more 

information on our proposed rule, 

please see the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, published in the Federal 

Register on February 5, 2013 (78 FR 

8274). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Indians, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide. 

Dated: June 10, 2013. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Air Division Director, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14630 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0603; FRL–9824–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Under the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard; Withdrawal and New 

Issuance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal and 

new issuance. 

SUMMARY: On August 26, 2008, EPA 

published a proposed rule to approve a 

revision to the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) on 

behalf of Philadelphia Air Management 

Services (AMS). The SIP revision, 

submitted to EPA on September 29, 

2006 (the 2006 SIP revision), consists of 

a demonstration that Philadelphia 

County is meeting the requirements of 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) under the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). EPA has 

determined that it cannot proceed with 

the final approval of the 2006 SIP 

revision. In light of the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (the Court) 

regarding EPA’s Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule, EPA cannot 

approve that compliance with a capand-trade program satisfies the NOX

RACT requirement for electric 

generating units (EGUs) in Philadelphia 

County, as presumed in the 2006 SIP 

revision. In addition, upon further 

review, EPA has determined that the 

2006 SIP revision does not adequately 

address the RACT requirements under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

major sources of VOC and NOX for 

which EPA has previously approved 

source-specific RACT determinations 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, EPA is withdrawing its 

August 26, 2008 proposed rule to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36717 

approve Philadelphia County’s 1997 8- 

hour RACT demonstration. On June 22, 

2010, PADEP submitted another SIP 

revision (the 2010 SIP revision) that 

consists of AMS regulations to address 

specific RACT requirements for 

Philadelphia County. EPA is proposing 

conditional approval of Philadelphia 

County 1997 8-hour ozone RACT 

demonstration provided in the 2006 and 

2010 SIP revisions, based upon AMS’ 

commitment to submit additional SIP 

revisions addressing source-specific 

RACT controls for major sources of VOC 

and NOX in Philadelphia County. This 

proposed action and the withdrawal 

action are being taken under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50270) is 

withdrawn as of July 19, 2013. Written 

comments on EPA’s proposed 

conditional approval action must be 

received on or before July 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2008–0603 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0603, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2008– 

0603. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Department of Public 

Health, Air Management Services, 321 

University Avenue, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19104. Copies are also 

available at Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 29, 2006, and on June 22, 

2010, PADEP submitted on behalf of 

AMS two SIP revisions for Philadelphia 

County addressing the requirements of 

RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

I. Background 

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by 

photochemical reactions between VOC, 

NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) in the 

presence of sunlight. In order to reduce 

ozone concentrations in the ambient air, 

the CAA requires all nonattainment 

areas to apply controls on VOC and NOX

emission sources to achieve emission 

reductions. Among effective control 

measures, RACT controls are a major 

group for reducing VOC and NOx

emissions from stationary sources. 

Since the 1970’s, EPA has 

consistently interpreted RACT to mean 

the lowest emission limit that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of the control 

technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility (See 72 FR 20586 at 20610, 

April 25, 2007). Section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA provides that SIPs for 

nonattainment areas must include 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) for attainment of the NAAQS, 

including emissions reductions from 

existing sources through adoption of 

RACT. Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 

referred to as RACT fix-up requires the 

correction of RACT rules for which EPA 

identified deficiencies before the CAA 

was amended in 1990. Philadelphia 

County has no deficiencies to correct 

under this section of the CAA. 

Section 182(b)(2) and (f) of the CAA 

requires that moderate (or worse) ozone 

nonattainment areas, as well as marginal 

and attainment areas in the ozone 

transport region (OTR) established 

pursuant to section 184 of the CAA, 

implement RACT controls on all major 

VOC and NOx emission sources (point 

sources) and on all sources and source 

categories covered by a control 

technique guideline (CTG) issued by 

EPA. A major source in a nonattainment 

area is defined as any stationary source 

that emits or has the potential to emit 

NOx and VOC emissions above a certain 

applicability threshold that is based on 

the ozone nonattainment classification 

of the area: marginal, moderate, serious, 

or severe. (See ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ in 40 CFR 51.165). 

Philadelphia County was designated 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as part 

of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 

severe ozone nonattainment area. See 56 

FR 56694, at 56822 (November 6, 1991). 

The entire Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania is also part of the OTR 

established under section 184 of the 

CAA. Therefore, Philadelphia County 

was subject to the CAA RACT 

requirements under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As a result, PADEP and AMS 

implemented numerous RACT controls 

applicable in Philadelphia County to 

meet the RACT requirements. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On April 30, 2004, Philadelphia County 

was designated under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS as part of the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 

moderate ozone nonattainment area. See 

69 FR 23858, at 23931 (April 30, 2004). 

Therefore, PADEP is required to submit 

to EPA, on behalf of AMS, a SIP revision 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36718 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that addresses how Philadelphia County 

meets the RACT requirements under the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Implementation of RACT controls is 

required in Philadelphia County for 

each category of VOC sources covered 

by a CTG document issued by EPA and 

all other major stationary sources of 

NOX and VOC. 

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

EPA published an ozone 

implementation rule to address 

nonattainment SIP requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the Phase 2 

Ozone Implementation Rule). This rule 

addressed various statutory 

requirements, including the requirement 

for RACT level controls for sources 

located within nonattainment areas 

generally, and controls for NOX

emissions from EGUs in particular. In 

the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation 

Rule, EPA specifically required that 

states meet the RACT requirements 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

either through a certification that 

previously adopted RACT controls in 

their SIP revisions approved by EPA 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

continue to represent adequate RACT 

control levels for 8-hour attainment 

purposes, or through the adoption of 

new or more stringent regulations that 

represent RACT control levels. See 70 

FR 71655 (November 29, 2005). 

As set forth in the preamble to the 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, a 

certification must be accompanied by 

appropriate supporting information 

such as consideration of information 

received during the public comment 

period and consideration of new data. 

This information may supplement 

existing RACT guidance documents that 

were developed for the 1-hour standard, 

such that the state’s SIP accurately 

reflects RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard based on the current 

availability of technically and 

economically feasible controls. 

Adoption of new RACT regulations will 

occur when states have new stationary 

sources not covered by existing RACT 

regulations, or when new data or 

technical information indicates that a 

previously adopted RACT measure does 

not represent a newly available RACT 

control level. Another 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS requirement for RACT is 

to submit a negative declaration if there 

are no CTG major sources of VOC and 

NOX emissions within the 

nonattainment area in lieu of or in 

addition to a certification. 

For addressing interstate transport of 

ozone pollution, EPA determined in the 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule 

that the regional NOX emissions 

reductions that result from either the 

NOX SIP Call or the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) would meet the NOX RACT 

requirement for EGUs located in states 

included within the respective 

geographic regions. Thus, EPA 

concluded that the states need not 

perform a NOX RACT analysis for 

sources subject to the state’s emission 

cap-and-trade program where the capand-trade program has been adopted by 

the state and approved by EPA as 

meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements 

or, in states achieving the CAIR 

reductions solely from EGUs, the CAIR 

NOX requirements. 

In November 2008, several parties 

challenged EPA’s Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule. In particular, 

EPA’s determination that compliance 

with the NOX SIP Call could satisfy NOX

RACT requirements for EGUs in 

nonattainment areas was challenged. As 

a result of this litigation, the Court 

decided that the provisions in the Phase 

2 Ozone Implementation Rule providing 

that a state need not perform (or submit) 

a NOX RACT analysis for EGU sources 

subject to a cap-and-trade program in 

accordance with the NOX SIP Call were 

inconsistent with the statutory 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA. Because regionwide RACT-level 

reductions in emissions do not meet the 

statutory requirement that the 

reductions be from sources in the 

nonattainment area, the Court found 

that EPA has not shown that compliance 

with the NOX SIP Call will result in at 

least RACT-level reductions in 

emissions from sources within each 

nonattainment area. See NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

II. EPA’s Rationale for Withdrawal of 

Proposed Approval and Proposal of 

Conditional Approval 

On September 29, 2006, PADEP 

submitted on behalf of AMS a SIP 

revision for Philadelphia County to 

meet the RACT requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2006 

SIP revision consists of a demonstration 

that Philadelphia County has met the 

RACT requirements for NOX and VOC, 

and includes: (1) A certification that 

previously adopted RACT controls in 

Pennsylvania’s SIP that were approved 

by EPA for Philadelphia County under 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on 

the currently available technically and 

economically feasible controls, and 

continue to represent RACT for the 8- 

hour implementation purposes; (2) the 

adoption of federally enforceable 

permits that represent RACT control 

levels for four major VOC sources; and 

(3) a negative declaration that certain 

VOC sources do not exist in 

Philadelphia County. 

On August 26, 2008 (73 FR 50270), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of 

the 2006 SIP revision. However, the 

2006 SIP revision relies on the NOX SIP 

Call to meet the NOX RACT 

requirements for EGUs. In light of the 

Court decision regarding the Phase 2 

Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA has 

determined it cannot approve the 

presumption in the 2006 SIP submittal 

that the NOX SIP Call constitutes RACT 

for EGU sources in Philadelphia County. 

Thus, AMS needs to perform a NOX

RACT analysis for sources that in the 

2006 SIP revision relied on the NOX SIP 

Call to satisfy Philadelphia County’s 

NOX RACT requirements. 

Upon further review, EPA also 

determined that the 2006 SIP revision 

does not specifically and sufficiently 

address if the source-specific RACT 

controls for 46 major sources in 

Philadelphia County that were 

previously approved in the SIP under 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continue to 

represent RACT under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Therefore, to satisfy the 

major source RACT requirement for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, AMS needs 

to either: (1) Provide a certification that 

previously adopted source-specific 

RACT controls approved by EPA in 

Pennsylvania’s SIP under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS for major sources in 

Philadelphia County (as listed in 40 

CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to 

adequately represent RACT for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, or (2) perform a 

source-specific RACT analysis for each 

source which controls are not currently 

adequately representing RACT under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

On June 22, 2010, PADEP submitted 

another SIP revision addressing 

Philadelphia County’s RACT 

requirements under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The 2010 SIP revision 

consists of: (1) The adoption of two 

regulations to meet CTG RACT 

requirements, and (2) a negative 

declaration for a CTG source category. 

Since the 2006 SIP revision relies on 

the NOX SIP Call to meet the NOX RACT 

requirements for EGUs and it does not 

specifically and sufficiently address the 

source-specific RACT determinations 

for 46 major sources that were 

previously approved under the 1-hour 

ozone standard, EPA has determined 

that it cannot proceed with the final 

approval of this SIP revision. Therefore, 

EPA is withdrawing its August 26, 2008 

proposed rule (73 FR 50270) to approve 

the 2006 SIP revision. 

Nevertheless, in this rulemaking 

action, EPA is proposing conditional 

approval of Philadelphia County’s 1997 

8-hour ozone RACT demonstration 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36719 

provided in the 2006 and 2010 SIP 

revisions, based upon a commitment 

from AMS to submit additional SIP 

revisions to provide source-specific 

RACT determinations for certain major 

sources of VOC and NOX in 

Philadelphia County, and a certification 

that previously adopted source-specific 

RACT controls approved by EPA in the 

Pennsylvania’s SIP under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the remaining sources 

in Philadelphia County (as listed in 40 

CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to 

adequately represent RACT for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to 

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, on April 

26, 2013, PADEP submitted on behalf of 

AMS a letter committing to submit SIP 

revisions to address source-specific 

RACT controls under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for Philadelphia County. 

III. Summary of SIP Revisions 

A. CTG RACT Controls and Negative 

Declarations 

In the 2006 SIP revision, in lieu of 

adopting regulations to address VOC 

CTG RACT requirements, Federallyenforceable permits were included for 

the following four major VOC sources in 

Philadelphia County: (1) Philadelphia 

Gas Works—Richmond Station, (2) 

Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery 

(formerly Sunoco Philadelphia 

Refinery), (3) Aker Philadelphia 

Shipyard, and (4) Sunoco Chemicals. In 

Section 4 of the 2006 SIP revision, AMS 

certified that these permits established 

RACT controls that are as stringent as 

EPA’s presumptive RACT provided in 

the applicable CTG documents for the 

specific source categories. Table 1 

identifies the four major VOC sources 

and the applicable CTG RACT 

requirements covered by these permits. 

TABLE 1—AFFECTED VOC SOURCES AND CTG RACT REQUIREMENTS

RACT basis Affected sources in Philadelphia County 

CTG: Control of Volatile Organic Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/ 

Gasoline Processing Plants, EPA–450/2–83–007, December 1983.

—Philadelphia Gas Works—Richmond Station. 

—Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco Philadelphia Refinery). 

CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations (Surface Coating), 61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996.

ACT: Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, EPA–453/R–94–032, April 1994 

—Aker Philadelphia Shipyard. 

CTG: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

(SOCMI), EPA–450/3–84–015, December 1984.

—Sunoco Chemicals. 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), EPA–450/4–91–031, August 1993.

—Sunoco Chemicals. 

However, in the 2006 SIP revision, 

Philadelphia Gas Works—Richmond 

Station and Philadelphia Energy 

Solutions Refinery (formerly Sunoco 

Philadelphia Refinery) were erroneously 

defined as natural gas processing plants 

under EPA’s CTG ‘‘Control of Volatile 

Organic Equipment Leaks from Natural 

Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants,’’ (EPA– 

450/2–83–007, December 1983). 

Subsequently, as part of the 2010 SIP 

revision, AMS submitted a negative 

declaration demonstrating that no 

sources exist in Philadelphia County for 

this CTG source category. 

In addition, the 2010 SIP revision 

adopts VOC RACT rules that address the 

following CTGs: (1) ‘‘Control 

Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair Operations (Surface 

Coating’’ (61 FR 44050, August 27, 

1996); (2) ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Air 

Oxidation Processes in Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry’’ (EPA–450/3–84–015, 

December 1984); and (3) ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Reactor Processes and Distillation 

Operations in Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry’’ 

(EPA–450/4–91–031, August 1993). 

Therefore, the 2010 SIP revisions 

addresses each of the CTG requirements 

listed in Table 1 and it supersedes 

Section 4 of the 2006 SIP revision 

addressing these CTG RACT 

requirements. 

For Philadelphia Gas Works— 

Richmond Station and Philadelphia 

Energy Solutions (formerly Sunoco 

Refinery), which were erroneously 

defined as natural gas processing plants 

in the 2006 SIP revision, EPA approved 

source-specific RACT evaluations under 

the 1-hour ozone standard. See 66 FR 

54947 and 66 FR 54942 (October 31, 

2001). The 2006 and 2010 SIP revisions 

do not address how Philadelphia meets 

the ‘‘major source’’ RACT requirement 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

for those sources for which EPA had 

previously approved source-specific 

RACT determinations under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. However, AMS has 

committed to submit additional SIP 

revisions to address this RACT 

requirement. 

In addition to the 2010 SIP revision’s 

negative declaration, the 2006 SIP 

revision includes a negative declaration 

for the VOC source category defined 

under EPA’s CTG ‘‘Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Existing 

Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory 

Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling’’ 

(EPA–450/2–78–032, June 1978). Table 

2 below lists the negative declarations 

submitted by AMS in the 2006 and 2010 

SIP revisions, which EPA is proposing 

to conditionally approve. AMS certified 

that these VOC CTG source categories 

do not exist in Philadelphia County. 

Therefore, AMS does not need to adopt 

regulations addressing the applicable 

CTGs for these source categories. 

TABLE 2—PHILADELPHIA COUNTY’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIST FOR VOC CTG SOURCES

CTG source category RACT basis 

Coating of Flat Wood Paneling ................................................................ Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, 

Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling, EPA– 

450/2–78–032, June 1978. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36720 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—PHILADELPHIA COUNTY’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION LIST FOR VOC CTG SOURCES—Continued 

CTG source category RACT basis 

Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas and Gasoline Processing Plants .... Control of Volatile Organic Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants, EPA–450/2–83–007, December 1983. 

B. VOC RACT Controls 

AMS Regulation (AMR) V (‘‘Control of 

Emissions of Organic Substances From 

Stationary Sources’’) and PADEP 

Regulation Title 25, Chapter 129 contain 

the CTG and non-CTG VOC RACT 

controls that were implemented and 

approved in Philadelphia County SIP 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

2006 SIP revision identifies 

Philadelphia County’s VOC RACT 

regulations for which AMS has 

provided the required evaluation and is 

certifying as currently representing 

RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Although alternative control 

technology documents (ACTs) are not 

regulatory documents and have no legal 

effect on state regulations, EPA requires 

that states verify that ACTs have been 

considered in the RACT program 

development process. Therefore, 

Philadelphia County included ACTs in 

their review of applicable RACT 

requirements in the 2006 SIP revision. 

Further details of Philadelphia County’s 

RACT determination for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) 

prepared for this rulemaking action. 

The 2010 SIP revision adopts the 

following regulations to meet CTG 

RACT requirements: (1) AMR V, section 

XV ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) from Marine Vessel 

Coating Operations’’ and (2) AMR V, 

section XVI ‘‘Synthetic Organic 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air 

Oxidation, Distillation, and Reactor 

Processes.’’ These regulations are in 

accordance with EPA’s presumptive 

RACT provided in the following CTGs: 

(1) ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations (Surface Coating)’’ (61 FR 

44050, August 27, 1996), (2) ‘‘Control of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Air Oxidation Processes in 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry’’ (EPA–450/3– 

84–015, December 1984), and (3) 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Reactor Processes and 

Distillation Operations in Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry’’ (EPA–450/4–91–031, August 

1993). The 2010 SIP revision also 

amends AMR V, section I ‘‘Definitions’’ 

for incorporating various definitions 

applicable to the adopted provisions in 

Sections XV and XVI. These definitions 

are in accordance with EPA’s 

recommendations in the applicable 

CTGs. These amendments to AMR V 

were adopted by AMS on April 26, 2010 

and became effective upon adoption. 

1. Marine Vessel Coating Operations 

AMR V, section XV is applicable to 

marine vessel coating operations at a 

facility at which the total potential VOC 

emissions equal or exceed 25 tons 

(22.75 metric tons) per year; or the 

actual VOC emissions from all marine 

vessel coating operations exceed 15 

pounds (7 kilograms) per day or 2.7 tons 

(2,455 kilograms) per year. The 

regulation establishes VOC emissions 

limits from general use coatings and 

from various specialty coatings. The 

limits, provided in Table 3 below, are 

expressed in two sets of equivalent 

units: grams/liter coating (minus water 

and exempt compounds) or grams/liter 

of solids. The limits are identical to 

those recommended in the 

corresponding CTG document, except 

that the cold-weather was specified to a 

period of every year, November 1st 

through March 31st. Further, for any 

coating used in a marine vessel coating 

operation for which the regulation does 

not provide an emissions standard, 

AMR V, section XV establishes a 

maximum VOC content limit of 340 

grams/liter (minus water and exempt 

solvents) or 571 grams per liter solids. 

TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR MARINE COATINGS IN AMR V, SECTION XV 

Coating category 

VOC limits abe

Grams per liter of 

coating 

(minus water and 

except compounds) 

Grams/liter solids c

April 1st through 

October 31st 

November 1st 

through 

March 31st d

General Use ......................................................................................................... 340 571 728

Specialty: 

Air flask ......................................................................................................... 340 571 728 

Antenna ........................................................................................................ 530 1,439 1,439 

Antifoulant ..................................................................................................... 400 765 971 

Heat resistant ............................................................................................... 420 841 1,069 

High-gloss ..................................................................................................... 420 841 1,069 

High-temperature .......................................................................................... 500 1,237 1,597 

Inorganic zinc high-build ............................................................................... 340 571 728 

Military exterior ...................................................................................... 340 571 728 

Mist ........................................................................................................ 610 2,235 2,235 

Navigational aids ................................................................................... 550 1,597 1,597 

Nonskid .................................................................................................. 340 571 728 

Nuclear .................................................................................................. 420 841 1,069 

Organic zinc .......................................................................................... 360 630 802 

Pretreatment wash primer ..................................................................... 780 11,095 11,095 

Repair and maintenance of thermoplastics .......................................... 550 1,597 1,597 

Rubber camouflage ............................................................................... 340 571 728 

Sealant for thermal spray aluminum ..................................................... 610 2,235 2,235 

Special marking ..................................................................................... 490 1,178 1,178 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36721 

TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR MARINE COATINGS IN AMR V, SECTION XV—Continued 

Coating category 

VOC limits abe

Grams per liter of 

coating 

(minus water and 

except compounds) 

Grams/liter solids c

April 1st through 

October 31st 

November 1st 

through 

March 31st d

Specialty interior .................................................................................... 340 571 728 

Tack coat ............................................................................................... 610 2,235 2,235 

Undersea weapon systems ................................................................... 340 571 728 

Weld-through preconstruction ...............................................................

primer .................................................................................................... 650 2,885 2,885 

aThe above limits are expressed in two sets of equivalent units, grams/liter coating (minus water and exempt compounds) or grams/liter solids. bTo convert from grams/liter (g/L) to pounds/gallon (lb/gal), multiply by (3,785 L/gal)(1/453.6 lb/g) or 1/120. For compliance purposes, metric 

units define the standards. cVOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of solids were derived from the VOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per 

volume of coating assuming the coatings contain no water or exempt compounds and that the volumes of all components within a coating are 

additive. dThese limits apply during the period November 1st through March 31st. During this period of time, allowances are not given to coating categories that permit less than 40 percent solids (non-volatiles) content by volume. Such coatings are subject to the same limits regardless of 

weather conditions. eVOC limits from EPA’s CTG for Ship Building, (61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996). 

AMR V, section XV also specifies as 

RACT the following cleanup 

requirements to minimize VOC 

emissions: (1) Storing all waste 

materials containing VOC, including 

cloth and paper, in closed containers; 

(2) maintaining lids on any VOC-bearing 

materials when not in use; and (3) using 

enclosed containers or VOC recycling 

equipment to clean spray gun 

equipment. 

2. Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry 

AMR V, section XVI applies to a vent 

stream from an air oxidation unit 

processes, distillation operations, or 

reactor processes in the SOCMI. The 

regulation is limited to vent streams 

from reactor processes and distillation 

operations producing one or more of the 

chemicals listed in Appendix A of 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Reactor Processes and 

Distillation Operations in Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry (SOCMI) for Reactor and 

Distillation CTG’’ (EPA–450/4–91–031, 

August 1993) and vent streams from an 

air oxidation unit process producing 

one or more of the chemicals listed in 

40 CFR 60.617. 

The owner or operator of an affected 

source subject to AMR V, section XVI is 

required to comply with the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

requirements found in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart III, subpart NNN, and/or subpart 

RRR, with some exceptions listed. The 

NSPS requirements for SOCMI sources 

are essentially identical to those 

recommendations in the applicable 

CTGs, and therefore are as stringent as 

EPA’s presumptive RACT. An air 

oxidation unit process, a distillation 

operation or reactor process in SOCMI 

subject to AMR V, section XVI must 

comply with either one of the following 

standards: (1) Reduction of emissions of 

total organic compounds (TOC) (minus 

methane and ethane) by 98 weightpercent, or to a TOC (minus methane 

and ethane) concentration of 20 ppmv 

on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent 

oxygen, whichever is less stringent; (2) 

combustion of the emissions in a flare 

that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

60.18; or (3) maintenance of a total 

resource effectiveness (TRE) index value 

greater than 1.0 without use of VOC 

emission control devices. 

The TRE index is a measure of the 

supplemental total resource requirement 

per unit of VOC reduction, associated 

with VOC control by a flare or 

incinerator. The TRE index value can be 

determined for each vent stream for 

which the off-gas characteristics are 

known, including: flow rate, hourly 

VOC emissions, corrosion properties, 

and net heating value. AMR V, section 

XVI provides two equations for 

calculating the TRE index value: (1) For 

a vent stream controlled by a flare, and 

(2) a vent stream controlled by an 

incinerator. For purposes of complying 

with maintaining a TRE index value 

greater than 1.0 without the use of VOC 

emission control devices, the owner or 

operator of a facility affected should 

calculate the TRE index value of the 

vent stream using the equation for 

incineration. The TRE index value of a 

non-halogenated vent stream is 

determined by calculating values using 

both the incinerator equation and the 

flare equation, and selecting the lower 

of the two values. 

EPA finds that the provisions adopted 

in AMR V, sections XV and XVI and the 

amendments of AMR V, section I are 

consistent with the CTG documents 

issued by EPA and that they represent 

RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard for these VOC source 

categories in Philadelphia County. 

Thus, EPA is proposing conditional 

approval of the 2010 SIP revision as part 

of Philadelphia County’s RACT 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

C. NOX RACT Controls 

The 2006 SIP revision demonstrates 

that AMR VII (‘‘Control of Emissions of 

Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary 

Sources’’) and PADEP Regulation Title 

25, Chapter 129 (‘‘Standards for 

Sources’’) contain NOX RACT controls 

that were implemented and approved in 

Philadelphia County SIP under the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Table 4 lists 

Philadelphia County’s NOX RACT 

controls for which AMS has provided 

the required evaluation and is certifying 

as currently representing RACT for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36722 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—PHILADELPHIA COUNTY’S NOX RACT CONTROLS UNDER THE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

Regulation SIP Approval by EPA RACT Rule applicability and requirements 

AMR VII, section II—Fuel Burning 

Equipment.

1/14/87; 52 FR 1456 .......... This section applies to fuel burning equipment greater than or equal to 

250,000 BTU/hr. 

AMR VII, section III—Nitric Acid 

Plants.

5/14/73; 38 FR 12696 ........ This section applies to nitric acid plants in excess of three pounds per ton 

of acid produced on a two hour average. 

AMR VII, section IV—Emissions Monitoring.5/14/73; 38 FR 12696 ........ This section requires instrument(s) for continuously monitoring and recording emissions of nitrogen oxides be well maintained. 

25 Pa. Code sections 129.91– 

129.95—Control of major sources 

of NOX and VOCs.

7/20/01; 66 FR 37908 ........ This regulation applies to all major sources of NOX and VOC not subject 

to any other RACT regulations. 

Section 129.92 establishes requirements for source-specific RACT determinations for certain major NOX and VOC sources. 

Section 129.93 establishes presumptive RACT limitations for certain classes of combustion units: coal-fired combustion units rated equal or greater than 100 MMBtu, combustion units rated equal or greater than 20 

MMBtu and less than 50 MMBtu. 

In the 2006 SIP revision, AMS also 

certifies that PADEP’s interstate 

pollution transport regulations currently 

represent NOX RACT under the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. These provisions 

rely on the NOX SIP Call and are found 

in the following PADEP regulations: 25 

Pa. Code sections 145.1–145.100 (‘‘NOX

Budget Trading Program’’), 25 Pa. Code 

sections 145.111–145.113 (‘‘Emissions 

of NOX from Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines’’), and 25 Pa. Code 

sections 145.141–144 (‘‘Emissions of 

NOX from Cement Manufacturing’’). In 

light of the Court decision regarding the 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 

EPA has determined it cannot approve 

AMS’ presumption that the NOX SIP 

Call constitutes RACT for EGU sources 

in Philadelphia County. There are five 

EGUs in Philadelphia County that relied 

on emissions reductions under the NOX

SIP Call as RACT: (1) Exelon—Delaware 

Station, (2) Exelon—Richmond Station, 

(3) Exelon—Schuylkill Station, (4) 

Veolia—Edison Station (formerly 

Trigen—Edison Station), and (5) 

Veolia—Schuylkill Station (formerly 

Trigen—Schuylkill Station). These 

EGUs are all major sources of NOX. 

AMS has committed to submit 

additional SIP revisions to address 

RACT for these five sources in 

Philadelphia County by providing 

source-specific RACT determinations. 

D. Source-Specific RACT 

AMS is implementing PADEP’s 

regulation 25 Pa. Code sections 129.91 

through 129.95 as RACT for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard for all major 

sources of NOX and VOC not subject to 

any other RACT rules. The regulation 

requires the owners or operators of the 

applicable sources to provide a case-bycase evaluation to determine RACT for 

each source (25 Pa. Code section 129.92) 

or to alternatively comply with 

presumptive NOX standards (25 Pa. 

Code section 129.93). 

Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA 

previously approved into 

Pennsylvania’s SIP source-specific 

RACT determinations for 46 major 

sources of VOC and NOX in 

Philadelphia County. See 40 CFR 

52.2020(d)(1). EPA has found that the 

2006 and 2010 SIP revisions do not 

address how AMS is currently meeting 

the source-specific RACT requirement 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for these 46 major sources. AMS has 

also identified five sources that since 

the approval of the 1-hour ozone sourcespecific RACT determinations have 

adopted or will adopt additional 

controls that represent RACT under the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (1) 

Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery 

(formerly Sunoco Refinery), (2) Kraft 

Nabisco (formerly Nabisco Biscuit Co), 

(3) Temple University—Health Sciences 

Center, (4) GATX Terminals 

Corporation, and (5) Honeywell 

International (formerly Sunoco 

Chemicals—Frankford Plant). AMS has 

committed to submit additional SIP 

revisions to address RACT for these 

major sources of NOX and VOC in 

Philadelphia County. 

IV. Withdrawal of Proposed Action and 

Proposed Action 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

withdrawing its August 26, 2008 NPR 

(73 FR 50270), which proposed to 

approve the 2006 SIP revision submitted 

by PADEP on behalf of AMS as 

Philadelphia County’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone RACT demonstration in 

accordance with the Court’s Opinion in 

NRDC v. EPA. See 571 F.3d 1245. EPA 

is also proposing to conditionally 

approve Philadelphia County’s RACT 

demonstration under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, as provided in the 2006 

and the 2010 SIP revisions. Pursuant to 

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, this 

conditional approval is based upon a 

letter from PADEP on behalf of AMS 

dated April 26, 2013 committing to 

submit to EPA, no later than twelve 

months from EPA’s final conditional 

approval of Philadelphia County’s 1997 

8-hour ozone RACT demonstration, 

additional SIP revisions to address the 

deficiencies in the current RACT 

demonstration for Philadelphia County. 

The SIP revisions, to be submitted by 

PADEP on behalf of AMS, will address 

source-specific RACT determinations 

for the following major sources in 

Philadelphia County: (1) Exelon— 

Delaware Station, (2) Exelon— 

Richmond Station, (3) Exelon— 

Schuylkill Station, (4) Veolia—Edison 

Station (formerly Trigen—Edison 

Station), (5) Veolia—Schuylkill Station 

(formerly Trigen—Schuylkill Station), 

(6) Philadelphia Energy Solutions 

Refinery (formerly Sunoco Refinery), (7) 

Kraft Nabisco (formerly Nabisco Biscuit 

Company), (8) Temple University, 

Health Sciences Center, (9) GATX 

Terminals Corporation, and (10) 

Honeywell (formerly Sunoco Chemicals, 

Frankford Plant); and will include a 

certification that previously adopted 

source-specific RACT controls approved 

by EPA in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the remaining sources 

in Philadelphia County (as listed in 40 

CFR 52.2020(d)(1)) continue to 

adequately represent RACT for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Once EPA has determined that AMS 

has satisfied this condition, EPA shall 

remove the conditional nature of its 

approval and Philadelphia County’s 

1997 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration 

will, at that time, receive a full approval 

status. Should AMS fail to meet the 

condition specified above, the final 

conditional approval of Philadelphia 

County’s 1997 8-hour ozone RACT 

demonstration will convert to a 

disapproval. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36723 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

pertaining to Philadelphia County’s 

RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 3, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14519 Filed 6–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 102–117 

[FMR Case 2012–102–5; Docket 2012–0017, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ34 

Federal Management Regulation 

(FMR); Restrictions on International 

Transportation of Freight and 

Household Goods 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy (OGP), General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: GSA is proposing to amend 

the Federal Management Regulation 

(FMR) provisions pertaining to the use 

of United States air carriers for cargo 

under the provisions of the ‘‘Fly 

America Act.’’ This proposed rule 

would additionally update the current 

provisions in the FMR regarding the 

Cargo Preference Act of 1954, as 

amended. Also, this proposed rule 

would amend the Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) to state clearly that 

this part applies to all agencies and 

wholly-owned Government corporations 

except where otherwise expressly 

provided. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

comments in writing on or before July 

19, 2013 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FMR Case 2012–102–5 by 

any of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FMR Case 2012–102–5,’’ 

select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ 

that corresponds with ‘‘FMR case 2012– 

102–5.’’ Follow the instructions 

provided at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ 

screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FMR Case 

2012–102–5’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1275 

First Street NE., 7th Floor, Washington, 

DC 20417. Instructions: Please submit 

comments only and cite FMR Case 

2012–102–5, in all correspondence 

related to this case. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal and/or business 

confidential information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755, 

for information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules. For clarification 

of content, contact Ms. Lee Gregory, 

Office of Governmentwide Policy, at 

202–501–1533 or email at 

lee.gregory@gsa.gov. Please cite FMR 

case 2012–102–5. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This proposed rule, if adopted, would 

inform readers where to find additional 

information regarding bilateral or 

multilateral air transport agreements, to 

which the United States Government 

and the government of a foreign country 

are parties, and which the Department 

of Transportation has determined meets 

the requirements of the Fly America 

Act. 

As these agreements qualify as 

exceptions to the use of U.S. flag air 

carrier service mandated by FMR 

section 102–117.135(a), this proposed 

rule, if adopted, would advise of an 

Internet-based source of information 

regarding the use of foreign air carriers 

under the terms of these bilateral or 

multilateral agreements. Additionally, 

this proposed rule would incorporate 

language regarding other exceptions to 

the Fly America Act and would more 

clearly define who would be subject to 

the provisions implementing the Fly 

America Act and the Cargo Preference 

Act. 

A. Background 

The Fly America Act, 49 U.S.C. 

40118, requires the use of United States 

air carrier service for all air cargo 

transportation services funded by the 

United States Government. The 

requirements of the Fly America Act 

apply whenever the air transportation of 

the cargo is funded by the U.S. 

Government. One exception to this 

requirement is transportation provided 

under a bilateral or multilateral air 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS